Having just two cylinders is in itself pretty unique....

 

Why?

Other cars with 2 cylinder engines are; Ford A-Model, Citroen 2CV, BMW 600, various world-war cars, &c.

It seems to me Fiat is rumbling through history's old "bits box" and getting a lot of credit for very little innovation.

They basically took Rover's old VIS and put it on an even older Citroen 2CV, with very predictable results, yet somehow a bunch of pencil pushing automotive journalists think its cutting edge :dunno:

 

I know the engine is a real "test beater" and Honest John says it is fun to drive but real-world economy is nothing like the test.

 

If you google twin air actual MPG, it seems many people are struggling to get 40mpg +... this engine is supposed to be a diesel rival in terms of economy.

Fiat claim 68.9mpg combined!?!? Utter lies.

If you can't easily get the claimed combined mpg figure from a car then there is something seriously wrong.

 

to be fair the Fiat isn't the only one to suffer, the Kia Picanto claims early 60s to the gallon the most i've ever achieved is early 40s, must be the weight of new cars with small engines having to work hard to get anything out of them. The MGF 1.8 does mid 40s!

 

In fairness, it ain't just Fiat which is falling short of the claimed consumption figures. It seems to be something afflicting most manufacturers. Does anyone know if the formula has been amended?

 

Can we independently verify the other figures?

 

The mpg figure?

 

There must be a few Foci running around with that new 1.0 engine now. It will be interesting to see if the owners get anywhere near the official mpg. I think it is possible to get over 60 mpg in the Fiat Twin Air but very hard as the very nature of the engine encourages you to drive it till the valves start bouncing.

 

Hell YEAH! Where did they get that idea from?

Oh, hang on...

64mpg? Austin decided 64mpg was not good enough, and so upped the claim to 83mpg:

Nothing new in the world, is there?

 

Hell YEAH! Where did they get that idea from?

Oh, hang on...

64mpg? Austin decided 64mpg was not good enough, and so upped the claim to 83mpg:

Nothing new in the world, is there?

What engine though?

 

As I've always said people take manufacturers nonsense mpg claims as gospel.

The way these figures are arrived at is contrived and bears no significance on real world usage.

Simple answer which I note JC also states is use the urban figure because in practice that is the best most people will ever see

There is currently a govt push to lust more realistic figures and Auticar recently ran a series of tests to measure real world figures.

Want to see realistic figures then look up these results and see a shock.

As I said my own experience in modern vehicles is 25-35mpg with my best ever from my old P plate Cov built 306 DTurbo which would get 38-40 irrespective of whether I was I hooligan or miser mode.

Mpgs are a joke not to be taken seriously and anyone expecting better than 50mpg is only ever going to see that in a car sitting constantly on a motorway at 56mph. My mates 1.9 TDI Octavian gets over 60 at those speeds and another used to get over 70 out of his old TDI Golf.

 

Mpgs are a joke not to be taken seriously

That they are. Manufacturers design and tune the cars to excel in the lab tests so they appear to be super-efficient when in the real world they are nowhere near as efficient as they appear to be. In fact, I would imagine that some of the techniques that are used to improve the lab figures may even hinder the cars in real-world driving i.e. over-long gearing and strangled intakes.

I would imagine the same to be true of the NCap testing, where the cars are designed to earn as many points as possible rather than improve safety in real-life crash situations.

 

Twin-air is a very interesting engine, it uses a camshaft for the exhaust valves & electro hydraulic solenoids for the inlet valves so that makes it semi-camless. Multi air has the same technology but has 2 extra cylinders. On the VIS comment, well Fiat have been using VIS since the 90s in the 20v engine as used in the Fiat Coupe, Bravo HGT etc.

 

Fiats MPG have been some of the most ambitious I have seen, like the Punto 1.2 MK2/2.5 are supposed to do nearly 50MPG on the combined cycle. I very much doubt that, I would like to see valid proof they do, they probably do around 40MPG. Well I could ask my family friend to see what her MPG is or fuel consumption. Well she did comment on how good my car is doing 100 miles on 1/4 a tank so it can't be that good with the Punto. BTW VIS was used on 20v 5 cyl Fiat engines .

 

Fiats MPG have been some of the most ambitious I have seen, like the Punto 1.2 MK2/2.5 are supposed to do nearly 50MPG on the combined cycle. I very much doubt that, I would like to see valid proof they do, they probably do around 40MPG. Well I could ask my family friend to see what her MPG is or fuel consumption. Well she did comment on how good my car is doing 100 miles on 1/4 a tank so it can't be that good with the Punto. BTW VIS was used on 20v 5 cyl Fiat engines .

I was probably thinking of the company they effectively killed off with the tipo derived (inspired?) 155 then :lol:
Is this technology similar to variable inlet control or is it similar to the twinspark engine with the variator??
Or erm....neither?